âŚThe statement, devoid of any details, was the opening volley in a power struggle that played out almost entirely behind closed doors. Privately, Sam Altman and the board jockeyed over what to say publicly and when, according to people familiar with the situation. At one point, during the discussions about Altmanâs possible return as CEO, he offered to publicly apologize for misrepresenting some board membersâ views in conversations when he was lobbying for a directorâs removal, the people said. [ie. telling Helen Toner that Tasha McCauley was pushing for her firing]
But the board was concerned that an apology in relation to one incident could make it sound like it was the sole reason he had been fired, one person said, and the directors believed the issues were deeper.
The board has declined to elaborate on its reasoning, citing an ongoing independent investigation, but more details are surfacing around the decision-making. According to multiple people familiar with the boardâs thinking who asked not to be identified discussing private conversations, the directorsâ move was the culmination of months spent mulling issues around Altmanâs strategic maneuvering and a perceived lack of transparency in his communications with directors.
âŚBoard members had begun talking about whether to remove Altman earlier in the fall, according to one personâŚThe board had heard from some senior executives at OpenAI who had issues with Altman, said one person familiar with directorsâ thinking. But employees approached board members warily because they were scared of potential repercussions of Altman finding out they had spoken out against him, the person said. The Washington Post previously reported some details of the employee unrest.
âŚAs the board mulled Altmanâs leadership, Ilya Sutskeverâs concerns had been building. Before joining OpenAI, the Israeli-Canadian computer scientist worked at Google Brain and was a researcher at Stanford University. In July, he formed a new team [Superalignment] at the company to bring âsuper intelligentâ future AI systems under control. And in October, Sutskeverâs responsibilities at the company were reduced, reflecting friction between him and Altman and Greg Brockman. [see: Superalignment compute quota lies, Jakub Pachocki] Sutskever later appealed to the board, winning over some members, including Helen Toner, the director of strategy at Georgetownâs Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
Also in October, Altman attempted to have Toner removed from her seat. At issue was a research paper she co-authored, containing some criticism of OpenAIâs safety practices. After Altman voiced concerns about the paper, Toner sent the rest of the board members an email alerting them to the research and offering to answer questions about it, said one person. One concern Altman expressed, the person said, was that with OpenAI under regulatory scrutinyâdue to an ongoing FTC investigationâit would look bad for a board member to say anything critical about the company, as regulators might conclude that there were deeper issues at OpenAI.
Altman also spoke to some board members himself. It was these conversations that proved particularly problematic, according to multiple people, who said that in some discussions with directors, Altman misrepresented the views of the others, and suggested that the other directors agreed with him that Toner should resign in the wake of it. Some details of these conversations were earlier reported by the New Yorker and the New York Times.
At one point, one of these people said that Altman told some directors Tasha McCauley had said, âHelenâs obviously got to goâ, a characterization McCauley resisted. The directors thought that these conversations represented a pattern of manipulative behavior by Altman, the people said.
An OpenAI spokesperson said this account âsignificantly differs from Samâs recollection of these conversations.â
âŚThe board members had also worried that the CEO wasnât always fully transparentâand if they couldnât get a clear picture from Altman, they couldnât effectively supervise him. That, in turn, would make it impossible to do their jobs overseeing the leader of one of the worldâs most important technologies.
âŚOne of them was Sutskever, who recanted his decision to help fire Altman [after intense personal pressure & emotional blackmail from the Brockmans]. In negotiations over Altmanâs return, Altman pushed for a statement from the board absolving him of wrongdoing, people with knowledge of the matter have said. The directors were unwilling to give in to this and other demands, Bloomberg reported. But within a few days, Altman was reinstated.
In the aftermath of Altmanâs ouster and return, both Toner and McCauley have resigned from their positions. The only remaining member of the volunteer board that existed before Nov. 17 is Quoraâs Adam DâAngelo. The outgoing directors pushed to retain him, one person said, in part because they wanted someone at the company who will remember what happened during the companyâs chaotic leadership battle and the events that lead up to it.